Top Law Schools

...

anonymous1010 wrote:Trying to pick a school that positions me best for a biglaw job in the San Francisco Bay Area down the road. Berkeley/HYS are out & it's down to GULC, Michigan, USC, UCLA, Vandy. Got some undergrad ties which I hope helps. Any advice is appreciated!

I shouldn't offer advice until you post your COA for each school. But if cost is equal, I'd say:

Michigan>GULC>>>UCLA/USC>Vandy

rpupkin wrote:

anonymous1010 wrote:Trying to pick a school that positions me best for a biglaw job in the San Francisco Bay Area down the road. Berkeley/HYS are out & it's down to GULC, Michigan, USC, UCLA, Vandy. Got some undergrad ties which I hope helps. Any advice is appreciated!

I shouldn't offer advice until you post your COA for each school. But if cost is equal, I'd say:

Michigan>GULC>>>UCLA/USC>Vandy

do bay area firms dip lower in GULC/Mich classes than USC/UCLA? curious about this topic, as well

slurp wrote: do bay area firms dip lower in GULC/Mich classes than USC/UCLA?

Yes.

rpupkin wrote:

slurp wrote: do bay area firms dip lower in GULC/Mich classes than USC/UCLA?

Yes.

can you provide a link to your source? I've actually been trying to look into this for a while and couldn't find any substantial evidence of a top 1/3 non-HYSB, yet still t14, student having an easier time than UCLA or USC at getting bay area biglaw. As someone who will be attending one of the latter, I am trying to gauge what would be realistic if I were to end up at this end of the class - admittedly it's too early for me to worry about this and i'm fine with LA, but just to feed my curiosity

slurp wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

slurp wrote: do bay area firms dip lower in GULC/Mich classes than USC/UCLA?

Yes.

can you provide a link to your source?

Sorry, my evidence is anecdotal. I've worked as a lawyer in the Bay Area for several years, and I'm familiar with the hiring practices of many big law offices here. Although I'm sure you can find exceptions, most big law firms will dip deeper into the classes at the T14 (even the "lower" T14) compared to USC/UCLA.

rpupkin wrote:

slurp wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

slurp wrote: do bay area firms dip lower in GULC/Mich classes than USC/UCLA?

Yes.

can you provide a link to your source?

Sorry, my evidence is anecdotal. I've worked as a lawyer in the Bay Area for several years, and I'm familiar with the hiring practices of many big law offices here. Although I'm sure you can find exceptions, most big law firms will dip deeper into the classes at the T14 (even the "lower" T14) compared to USC/UCLA.

How does Texas do compared to the UCLA/USC/Vandy group for the Bay Area? Assuming ties/active networking/connections in firms/excellent interview skills, would you say one would be at a greater disadvantage than one with similar grades coming from UCLA/USC?

candidlatke wrote:Assuming ties/active networking/connections in firms/excellent interview skills, would you say one would be at a greater disadvantage than one with similar grades coming from UCLA/USC?

Not significantly. A UT grad will be in roughly the same position as a UCLA/USC grad, all things being equal. There are probably a few more UCLA/USC alumni at firms in the Bay Area, which perhaps gives UCLA/USC students a slight advantage at the margins.

To be clear, I'm talking about Northern California. If we were taking about the Southern California market, then UCLA/USC would have a distinct advantage over UT.

rpupkin wrote:

candidlatke wrote:Assuming ties/active networking/connections in firms/excellent interview skills, would you say one would be at a greater disadvantage than one with similar grades coming from UCLA/USC?

Not significantly. A UT grad will be in roughly the same position as a UCLA/USC grad, all things being equal. There are probably a few more UCLA/USC alumni at firms in the Bay Area, which perhaps gives UCLA/USC students a slight advantage at the margins.

To be clear, I'm talking about Northern California. If we were taking about the Southern California market, then UCLA/USC would have a distinct advantage over UT.

Depending on the hiring partner, but some of the older partners in LA firms see Texas on par with Georgetown which maybe says more about Georgetown than UT). These same folks also think Michigan is a top 5 law school. I tend to think that UCLA>UT>USC for LA market. But I also think it's incredibly important to go to a law school in your desired geographical market once you get outside the T14.

One V10 firm I know will dip down for top 30% of the class for Georgetown while only 20-25% for UCLA. That being said, that GULC student must have ties.

globetrotter659 wrote:
Depending on the hiring partner, but some of the older partners in LA firms see Texas on par with Georgetown which maybe says more about Georgetown than UT). These same folks also think Michigan is a top 5 law school. I tend to think that UCLA>UT>USC for LA market. But I also think it's incredibly important to go to a law school in your desired geographical market once you get outside the T14.

One V10 firm I know will dip down for top 30% of the class for Georgetown while only 20-25% for UCLA. That being said, that GULC student must have ties.

I'm assuming this is Latham, if not Gibson? I've heard Gibson LA generally requires top 10-15% for UCLA/USC but I'm not sure how true that is.

Would I also be correct in my assessment that these are general percentages and that one has wiggleroom depending on personality/interview skills/connections? (As in if a great UT kid in the top 30% would have similar opportunities in the market to a mediocre UCLA/USC kid in the top 20-25% like at the v10 firm you just mentioned)

globetrotter659 wrote: I tend to think that UCLA>UT>USC for LA market.

Can you explain your reasoning? Seems inaccurate to me, but I have no LA hiring experience.

globetrotter659 wrote: Depending on the hiring partner, but some of the older partners in LA firms see Texas on par with Georgetown which maybe says more about Georgetown than UT). These same folks also think Michigan is a top 5 law school. I tend to think that UCLA>UT>USC for LA market. But I also think it's incredibly important to go to a law school in your desired geographical market once you get outside the T14.

Yes, certain partners have odd quirks, and it's possible that a given firm goes against the grain in one respect or another. I mean, I personally know two partners—at two different SF big law firms—who sincerely prefer to hire Hastings grads over Yale grads. But does that mean that someone who wants SF big law should go to Hastings over Yale? Of course not. We're talking about what gives an applicant the best chance overall at employment in a given market, not about the idiosyncratic preferences of a couple partners at a couple of firms.

So, while I have no reason to doubt your story about these "older partners" you know at LA firms, I'm extremely skeptical of your suggestion that UT is better than USC for someone interested in the LA market. I know less about the LA market than the SF market, but—based on what I do know—I suspect that your assessment is off the mark.

I went to UT and can't imagine UT having an advantage over UCLA/USC in CA, and especially not in LA.

UCLA is definitely superior to UT for the LA (or SF) market. A UT student with strong connections to LA is probably in a similar situation to the USC kid. But like most industries in LA, USC's alumni network is ridiculous. But like I said above , once you are out of the T14, it is best to go to a law school in the market you want to work.

Strict class rank/grade cutoffs apply at certain firms. Also matters whether the school's OCI program allows screening.

globetrotter659 wrote: I tend to think that UCLA>UT>USC for LA market.

globetrotter659 wrote:UCLA is definitely superior to UT for the LA (or SF) market. A UT student with strong connections to LA is probably in a similar situation to the USC kid. But like most industries in LA, USC's alumni network is ridiculous. But like I said above , once you are out of the T14, it is best to go to a law school in the market you want to work.

I don't know how you are reconciling these two posts.

We really need the cost of attendance of each school, OP.
What's your backup plan? NYC Biglaw? Bay Area non-BigLaw?

Rigo wrote:

globetrotter659 wrote: I tend to think that UCLA>UT>USC for LA market.

globetrotter659 wrote:UCLA is definitely superior to UT for the LA (or SF) market. A UT student with strong connections to LA is probably in a similar situation to the USC kid. But like most industries in LA, USC's alumni network is ridiculous. But like I said above , once you are out of the T14, it is best to go to a law school in the market you want to work.

I don't know how you are reconciling these two posts, but okay.

Because once you get out of Big Law, USC is going to be far superior for the LA market than UT. However, I would like to amend my original assertion having just looked up the LST reports. USC is the better choice for LA Big Law over UT (I forgot that both perform about the same for Big Law placement overall). And given that the original questions were about GULC outperforming USC/UCLA, I apologize for my UT annectdote distraction.

...

If your "most important factor is getting a good job in SF," then Michigan is worth $20K more than UCLA. Easily.

ETA: If you were fine with working in SoCal, then USC would be the best choice, based on the minimal cost information you've provided here. But if you're SF or bust, then you shouldn't go to USC/UCLA. In fact, if you're San Francisco or bust, you probably shouldn't go to law school at all.

Second ETA: Removed quoted post based on OP's request.

Good to know, thanks. Anyone else have insights to add?

rpupkin wrote:In fact, if you're San Francisco or bust, you probably shouldn't go to law school at all.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Do you mean SF biglaw or SF law in general? Would that apply to the whole Bay Area as well (SJ, Palo Alto, SV, etc). I'm looking at some of the same schools as OP and would like to return home to the Bay after law school in the event I go to school OOS. Not tied to biglaw, but would like to get a job here.

Gitaroo_Dude wrote:

rpupkin wrote:In fact, if you're San Francisco or bust, you probably shouldn't go to law school at all.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Do you mean SF biglaw or SF law in general?

I mean SF law in general. If you're not in at HYSB, and if you must work as a lawyer in the SF Bay Area, I'd think twice about attending law school, particularly if significant debt is involved.

There's nothing wrong with having SF law as a goal, but I'd make sure I'd be fine with working in another market (NYC, LA, the market in which your law school is located) before committing to go to law school.